Breitbart round-up on major political bias stories

General discussion about Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects
Post Reply
User avatar
The Devil's Advocate
Posts: 324
Joined: Wed Aug 23, 2017 7:50 pm

Breitbart round-up on major political bias stories

Post by The Devil's Advocate » Fri Feb 02, 2018 1:11 am

Put this together for Breitbart on what I think are the five best examples of left-wing bias on the site from last year. It is also at the top of the front page of Breitbart. X)

User avatar
EarlStatler
Posts: 333
Joined: Thu Aug 24, 2017 1:19 pm

Re: Breitbart round-up on major political bias stories

Post by EarlStatler » Sat Feb 03, 2018 12:57 am

I have read your article, TDA, and the inks. And I have something noticed. On the talk page of Jimmy many non-Americans are giving there opinion, most times left orientated.
I hope I made clear to you and others Europe has a complete different political system. You can't compare both systems. And I consider it as very wrong and imperialistic people from other country's give Wikipedia a left bias, when it's about American politics. It is one of the many system errors of Wikipedia. It's the same as trying to installed Mac programs on a Window computer.
I can't judge over the American politics, and have not the right to intervene in you political themas. Not direct, and not through Wikipedia. I may have a opinion about it, but American politic is up to the Americans.
If you're in a dogfight, become a cat!

User avatar
The Devil's Advocate
Posts: 324
Joined: Wed Aug 23, 2017 7:50 pm

Re: Breitbart round-up on major political bias stories

Post by The Devil's Advocate » Sun Feb 04, 2018 10:01 pm

So, WO has taken notice of the article. The usual suspects showed up to downplay the whole thing. Ming gave a pretty empty dismissal while seemingly claiming to be "unbiased", which is absurd. Kingsindian continued on his usual approach of trying to say "the real issue is" some other thing that is really only a partial explanation, if that. He noted that Jytdog figured positively in the Berkeley story, but negatively in the Google memo story and suggested this as proof his actions in the latter case weren't about being left-wing. One problem with talking about bias is that a lot of people don't understand what bias means or that bias exists on a spectrum same as politics. My own observation is that Jytdog does have a bias towards the left and this played a role in his activity related to the Google memo. Yet, his bias is obviously not so extreme that he would tolerate the activities of the Berkeley course. His other beliefs may influence those positions as well, but I do not think one can simply exclude his ideology entirely as a factor. To his credit Kingsindian does at least somewhat acknowledge a bias in outcomes, though it seems mostly on removing opponents then on changing content. Never mind the two are often inseparable as the former effectuates the latter.

One response worth noting is the comment by Sashi. It is important to consider the actual title of the piece is "five of the best examples" rather than simply "five best examples" as it was titled in the thread. Wouldn't dispute that there are other great examples and Sagecandor being one, but there are also reasons why I don't think that would have fit the article. Every controversy noted in the piece covers a major political issue of the year and usually a brief period of conflict on Wikipedia by a large number of editors. The Berkeley case is sort of an exception, but it is also a significant one. Focusing on a single editor's edits is not sufficient to me because it is limited to just one editor. As far as the Minassian issue, that controversy is less about content on Wikipedia as it is about the institutional bias of those who serve as the public face of Wikipedia. My purpose with this piece is to highlight more egregious cases of articles being slanted towards a certain ideological stance and how it isn't just one editor or one topic. It is about demonstrating a systemic issue, which is harder to do by focusing on one editor.

User avatar
The Devil's Advocate
Posts: 324
Joined: Wed Aug 23, 2017 7:50 pm

Re: Breitbart round-up on major political bias stories

Post by The Devil's Advocate » Tue Feb 06, 2018 6:36 am

The reaction there has been pretty unsurprising, even if still a bit disappointing. Kingsindian is, at least, making an effort yet even then he falls short. He likes claiming I have an inconsistent standard, but the truth is he is just consistently missing the point entirely. Given how his blog posts meander around without any apparent point this is not unexpected. However, it would be nice if he could at least read the materials better if he is going to comment. Kingsindian cites the section about the CNN controversies and starts off making a false assumption about my supposed assumptions. The error would be clear if he continued onto the last sentence of the first paragraph in that segment. Needs to also be mentioned that every section links to one or two pieces going into greater detail about these incidents published either at Breitbart or, as is the case with the CNN controversy section, Medium. Part of the challenge with this is that these pieces need to be accessible to the general public and that means policy wonks are going to be harder to satisfy if they aren't inclined or are unable to look into it on their own with an objective eye. Sadly, those criticizing the piece all have varying degrees of bias towards ideologically left positions, so they aren't really able to do it.

sashi
Posts: 110
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2017 6:26 pm

Re: Breitbart round-up on major political bias stories

Post by sashi » Tue Feb 06, 2018 2:10 pm

Sorry for my mistake TDA. I said something about it over there. I should .stop. saying stuff over there and focus on creolizin' for a while. I haven't done that in a while. I also want to make it clear that those of us who are encouraging your light-shining do not all have bias towards ideologically "right" positions. Are we "right-hearted"? who knows... ^^

User avatar
The Devil's Advocate
Posts: 324
Joined: Wed Aug 23, 2017 7:50 pm

Re: Breitbart round-up on major political bias stories

Post by The Devil's Advocate » Tue Feb 06, 2018 6:46 pm

sashi wrote:
Tue Feb 06, 2018 2:10 pm
Sorry for my mistake TDA. I said something about it over there. I should .stop. saying stuff over there and focus on creolizin' for a while. I haven't done that in a while. I also want to make it clear that those of us who are encouraging your light-shining do not all have bias towards ideologically "right" positions. Are we "right-hearted"? who knows... ^^
One thing I would say about bias is that it isn't about truth or a person's opinions, but how a person evaluates facts or positions. For example, if someone reads the piece and sarcastically quips that proof of left-wing bias is not being able to say BLM are terrorists then claims Fox News and Breitbart would be cited as sources because they say this all the time, then it is reasonable to conclude that person is biased. That is because the former point is a strawman unrelated to my piece and the latter point is just false. Every example I give is based off a detailed assessment. Not every edit that would be favorable to a left-wing point of view is included because not every such edit is objectionable. Removing poorly-sourced or unsourced material is not something I present as biased in any of the pieces linked in this piece. My criticism focuses on removal of content that would be supported by sources whose reliability is often beyond dispute, instances where the source is being misrepresented by an editor, cases where poor sources are used for content, or times when material is given undue weight. The whole point is that their actions are not in keeping with policy or best practice and the result is an article slanted in favor of their political position.

User avatar
EarlStatler
Posts: 333
Joined: Thu Aug 24, 2017 1:19 pm

Re: Breitbart round-up on major political bias stories

Post by EarlStatler » Wed Feb 07, 2018 7:26 pm

A question TDA. Why did you chose Breitbart as medium? And Sashi, i agree with Kingsindian, bais is to difficult in this discussion. Standard is better.
If you're in a dogfight, become a cat!

User avatar
The Devil's Advocate
Posts: 324
Joined: Wed Aug 23, 2017 7:50 pm

Re: Breitbart round-up on major political bias stories

Post by The Devil's Advocate » Wed Feb 07, 2018 9:16 pm

EarlStatler wrote:
Wed Feb 07, 2018 7:26 pm
A question TDA. Why did you chose Breitbart as medium? And Sashi, i agree with Kingsindian, bais is to difficult in this discussion. Standard is better.
Don't know how familiar you are with the media landscape in America, but there aren't exactly a lot of options for the kind of criticism I am offering. Not much of the Anglophone world, for that matter, has a lot of options. Breitbart is the biggest and most likely outlet to accept what I have to write. Plus, I was already in contact with them anyway.

User avatar
EarlStatler
Posts: 333
Joined: Thu Aug 24, 2017 1:19 pm

Re: Breitbart round-up on major political bias stories

Post by EarlStatler » Thu Feb 08, 2018 3:48 pm

In am not familiar with the media landscape in America, that is the reason I asked. And I said already on WO, the medium and the bias are total uninteresting. You made a very good point, Wikipedia articles have often a bias, standard, and that is unfair. No matter if it is a left or a right bias/standard. And that is were it's about. Because nobody deserves an unfair article, I explained before why.
It's complete nonsens to claim a liberal has no integrity and a left wing person has, because that is simple not true.
The whole point is arbcom blocked you in a unfair way, and you made a fair point. And that is were it is about, and not about if I am a marxist or you a liberal, or were you published your story.
If you're in a dogfight, become a cat!

User avatar
The Devil's Advocate
Posts: 324
Joined: Wed Aug 23, 2017 7:50 pm

Re: Breitbart round-up on major political bias stories

Post by The Devil's Advocate » Sat Feb 10, 2018 9:05 pm

I admit some of the defenses are pretty interesting. Jake describing himself as an "anti-right moderate" and Marek's own self-description of "militant moderate" are laughably oxymoronic. Doesn't help that their claims to moderation boil down to essentially saying that they aren't Marxists. Surely what they mean is "centrist" yet even there I'd say they are misrepresenting themselves a bit. Perhaps they feel they are centrist in an international context where sometimes the mainstream left are actually Marxists and socialists, but that is ignoring a lot of what lies on the left between centrism and full-blown socialism. None of this, of course, affects bias as that has nothing to do with where someone's opinions lie on a spectrum.

Malik's comments about fact-checking is the most rational thing he's said in that thread, but unfortunately still indicative of bias. Part of the objection on the right over fact-checking organizations being involved with Facebook was those doing the fact-checking. One of those involved was Politifact, which, in my observation, tends to be biased against Republicans and conservatives in its analysis. There are unfortunately a lot of fact-checking organizations or "fact-check" pieces in news that show the same political bias as the major media. Such bias makes their fact-checking less credible. As I recall, Wales or the WMF have also tried to promote Wikipedia for "fact-checking" as well with Facebook. Obviously, the biggest underlying grievance on the rights is that this stems from the whole "fake news" narrative concocted as one of the various scapegoats for Trump winning an election many people believed he couldn't win.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests